Agree to disagree
is Star Trek (1)4 happening?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
I think Kirk's state was like brain-death. The body wasn't dead yet, but the person was declared as such because there was no way to heal him from his state, and stop the natural process of his body dying because of the damage done by radiation poisoning.
I think Khan's blood could work in that specific circumstance only, and only if they acted fast and used it before it was too late for Kirk. I don't think they could use it to bring anyone back from the death (e.g., Pike).
I too find it forced and a tad too convenient, though it may not be the most over the top absurd 'fantasy' thing we saw in trek and sci-fi. The whole concept of katra transfer with the vulcans, or the mind-meld itself for example is 'fascinating'.
I think Khan's blood could work in that specific circumstance only, and only if they acted fast and used it before it was too late for Kirk. I don't think they could use it to bring anyone back from the death (e.g., Pike).
I too find it forced and a tad too convenient, though it may not be the most over the top absurd 'fantasy' thing we saw in trek and sci-fi. The whole concept of katra transfer with the vulcans, or the mind-meld itself for example is 'fascinating'.
Thanks for posting that clip. With the exception of McCoy, that was just yet another pointless tedious scene, cementing XII as one of the worst (along with X) films of the franchise.
I think I'll watch Beyond tonight to wipe my mind of that travesty
Actually it's the other way 'round: Kirk (and the Tribble's) body was dead. But Kirk's brain hasn't decayed yet and was preserved in the cryo-chamber. As in, they were able to revive him, and he still would be Kirk. Pike on the other hand was probably too long dead. As in, the superblood could have revived his body (like Spock's body was revived on Genesis), but the structure of his brain was already decayed, so the character was dead. If they pumped him up with superblood, his body would be revived from the dead, but you'd have a mindless zombie at hand.
Thanks for posting that clip. With the exception of McCoy, that was just yet another pointless tedious scene, cementing XII as one of the worst (along with X) films of the franchise.
I think I'll watch Beyond tonight to wipe my mind of that travesty
Eh. Into Darkness is a very well made movie. Like, it isn't even half bad, it kinda works on it's own as a whole, despite very low stakes and a needless sacrifice scene with a very clichéd deus-ex mcguffin-resurrection. Better than some newer comic book movies. The problem is it doesn't fit with the rest of Star Trek. Neither in characterisation (mostly Spock), nor story and plot (the universe breaking nitpicks I just mentioned). Would it be a more generic sci-fi movie without Star Trek in the title, it's actually mostly watchable. Not great, or as good as ST09. But it's actually very well directed. It's main problem really is the screenplay, and mainly the plot of it.
"You were barely dead" said McCoy.
BTW I just realized, Alex Kurtzman kinda' as a knack for stupid sacrifice- and resurrection plots! 
He wrote Transformers 2, where Optimus Prime sacrificed himself stupidly in a forest battle (because nobody helped him), had him revived with a magical McGuffin (the "matrix"), had Sam Witwicky ALSO die and ALSO be revived by the Transformers technology (but not before seeing the Transformers version of paradise, with the previous Primes!). Then wrote Into Darkness, were Kirk was revived with Khans' superblood. Then directed the new Mumy-movie, in which Tom Cruise died and was resurrected by mumy-spell as the god of death.
This guy still is in control of Discovery, right? Wonder how many people that died there will come back
He wrote Transformers 2, where Optimus Prime sacrificed himself stupidly in a forest battle (because nobody helped him), had him revived with a magical McGuffin (the "matrix"), had Sam Witwicky ALSO die and ALSO be revived by the Transformers technology (but not before seeing the Transformers version of paradise, with the previous Primes!). Then wrote Into Darkness, were Kirk was revived with Khans' superblood. Then directed the new Mumy-movie, in which Tom Cruise died and was resurrected by mumy-spell as the god of death.
This guy still is in control of Discovery, right? Wonder how many people that died there will come back
Said McCoy. Which was clearly a lie to ease Kirk, as it's very visibly shown how resusciation measures were fruitless, and the dead body was pulled out of a body bag as soon as McCoy saw the chance for resurrection after the (for long hours completely) dead Tribble came back to life. What he meant was: His brain was still in shape (that thing decays after a few MINUTES without oxygen).
This guy still is in control of Discovery, right? Wonder how many people that died there will come back
The Harry Mudd episode
Plus I suspect it's his way of controlling the wave of leftover emotion he has about his best friend's death, then the relief/whiplash from realizing he can be saved, the long agonizing moments when he wondered if it would work, etc. McCoy has more in common with Spock than he thinks. (Don't tell him I said that.)
Wonder how many people that died there will come back
I doubt it'd be more than Voyager. Neelix was brought back by Seven's nanoprobes (an ability never used or even mentioned again), Harry was replaced by an alternate universe double, hell, someone worked out that Janeway died 17 times over the course of the series.
Hang on, are you saying the transformers movies have plots?!
Uncommon doesn't equal impossible though. Especially when you are a main character
This Spock makes sense based upon his development, and Kirk's sacrifice makes perfect sense in terms of his character.
A story of learning and redemption, growth and maturation? How much more Star Trek can we get?
Uncommon doesn't equal impossible though. Especially when you are a main character
This Spock makes sense based upon his development, and Kirk's sacrifice makes perfect sense in terms of his character.
A story of learning and redemption, growth and maturation? How much more Star Trek can we get?
How does it make sense for Spock to go full rage-monster when Kirk died - a guy he found most annoying in the previous movie and barely tolerates in this one - while he was much, much more composed when his own mother died, together with his whole planet?
No, this really only works if you assume theses new characters have adopted the same friendship the TOS characters had developed over many years - for which, frankly, is scant evidence in those movies.
And how did Kirk's sacrifice made narrative sense? We learned he would be a good Captain? Well, that was the resolution of the last movie. It becomes quite ridiculous if a major character death isn't something dramatic, but a nuisance that is magically resolved 5 minutes later anyway. I didn't see any consequences, experiences or major insights anyone got from these developments. Afterwards they all act the same way they did before. The only reasonable thing was that Spock's sacrifice in STII (which was part of the main theme of the movie) was a cool emotional scene, and JJ. Abrams wanted to direct it himself again.
Christ on a stick, it's 2013 again.
Let's have a moan about Delta Vega in time for the ten-year anniversary.
Let's have a moan about Delta Vega in time for the ten-year anniversary.
Except for that couple of times it happened way back when.
Its best to look at STID (and ST09) as Trek for the masses. This is not your grandfathers/fathers Trek etc that's what Star Trek is when its made for current mass audience who go to see Transformers, Fast Furious, and Star Wars. (iconic villains like Romulans/Klingons/Khan, earth under threat, time travel, fist fights/phasers fights/space battles/exploding planets/deaths, big name trek stars) When they go abit more 'trekkie' (Beyond) the mass audience sort of skipped it (even though the Enterprise destroyed again). so for 4 they really need to go back to that mass appeal Trek if they want the bigger grosses, and keep the more trekkie stuff for TV.
it was kind of the same with TOS/TNG movies keeping up/taking note of the audience appeal (II/III - more action packed/Lucasy/Spielbergy after TMPs misjudged cerebral 2001 approach, IV - 80s fish out of water comedy/timetravel like BTTF/Terminator, FC - ID4 style alien invasion/timetravel/trek does Aliens meets Terminator)
it was kind of the same with TOS/TNG movies keeping up/taking note of the audience appeal (II/III - more action packed/Lucasy/Spielbergy after TMPs misjudged cerebral 2001 approach, IV - 80s fish out of water comedy/timetravel like BTTF/Terminator, FC - ID4 style alien invasion/timetravel/trek does Aliens meets Terminator)
Last edited:
I think this "grandfathers/fathers Trek" is kind of a misdirection. Both TOS and TNG were for mass audiences, and quite successfully so (TOS mainly in re-runs, but nevertheless).
What made ST09 so good, was that it basically was every Trek trope, supercharged! Massive alien starships, time travel, wormholes, black holes, first sitting in the command chair, no-win scenario, arriving at the destroyed fleet, transporter malfunction, away teams, doomed planets, ship-vs-ship battles, the burden of command, flying around the Enterprise with a shuttle, phaser fights, ejecting the warpcore,.... Basically EVERYTHING happened in this movie! Sadly, Into Darkness wasn't up to that - which alone wouldn't have been that big of a problem, but combined with the looooong waiting periods between each movies, general audiences simply forgot about Trek in the meantime! People are forgetting, this franchise is so old, it basically started out together with the MCU! Not all Marvel movies are better, I think they are pretty comparable, both in tone, audiences and quality. But whenever they started a new successfull franchise (Thor, Capain America), they followed up on it pretty soon, to keep audiences interested.This was IMO the problem of the new Trek movies. Would Into Darkness have appeared in 2011, and Beyond in 2013, I think they would have been more financially viable, and this year we would already have a fifth nuTrek movie.
What made ST09 so good, was that it basically was every Trek trope, supercharged! Massive alien starships, time travel, wormholes, black holes, first sitting in the command chair, no-win scenario, arriving at the destroyed fleet, transporter malfunction, away teams, doomed planets, ship-vs-ship battles, the burden of command, flying around the Enterprise with a shuttle, phaser fights, ejecting the warpcore,.... Basically EVERYTHING happened in this movie! Sadly, Into Darkness wasn't up to that - which alone wouldn't have been that big of a problem, but combined with the looooong waiting periods between each movies, general audiences simply forgot about Trek in the meantime! People are forgetting, this franchise is so old, it basically started out together with the MCU! Not all Marvel movies are better, I think they are pretty comparable, both in tone, audiences and quality. But whenever they started a new successfull franchise (Thor, Capain America), they followed up on it pretty soon, to keep audiences interested.This was IMO the problem of the new Trek movies. Would Into Darkness have appeared in 2011, and Beyond in 2013, I think they would have been more financially viable, and this year we would already have a fifth nuTrek movie.
Because it was one more death on his watch in the past year. He lost his mom, his planet, his mentor (Pike) and now Kirk. There becomes a point were a human would struggle with that much death and would snap. How much more so with a Vulcan who's emotions run "much deeper" than humans? He should just shrug it off? I don't understand this point of view.
Then, agree to disagree. Kirk didn't learn "how to be a good captain" by the end of 09 because he wasn't "ready for it." There was still this impulsive brashness to him with a flagrant disregard for the rules.
I genuinely do not see how Kirk doesn't become more serious, more seasoned, less impulsive, and how that leads straight in to Beyond doesn't reflect at the end of ST ID.
Overall, I'm not looking at that scene from the POV of a Star Trek fan or someone who can appreciate TWOK's impact on the franchise. I am looking at it from a character perspective, that Kirk had to learn the meaning of sacrifice (He refused to sacrifice Sulu, Pike or Spock) and that being a captain meant being more serious. The scene in the reactor is him accepting that risk for himself and not risking someone else, and not being able to win.
I don't know what else to tell you at this point. I feel like Kirk's arc is well done, and Spock's emotional rage makes sense in light of all the trauma and death he has had in the past year. Dismissing it out of hand feels very superficial to me.
Well, I could certainly see nuUhura sacrificing herself make nuSpock go berserk. But nuKirk? Nah, that really only works when you apply the traditional TOS friendship as a foundation. I mean, I kinda' can see him let loose in a personal fistfight, but nuSpock doing the "KHAAAAAN"-yell was...distracting. I still don't see any benefits in copy-and-pasting the emotional climax of another, better movie line-for-line for a new movie, but without the consequences. It really is one of the most baffling things in mainstream entertainment I have seen in the last 20 years. It took me right out of the movie, maybe that's the reason why I can't take it seriously. But it kinda' seems that's JJ. Abrams way of operating these days, Force Awakens being a beat-for-beat remake of A New Hope and all.
